Professor Highlights Complex Legal Hurdles and ‘Lawfare’ Concerns in Prosecution of Former FBI Director
The recent indictment of former FBI Director James Comey by the US Department of Justice has immediately divided partisans, but the true merit of the case remains shrouded in legal and ethical complexity, according to Law Professor Alan Dershowitz.
Dershowitz argues that while the left dismisses the charges as politically motivated “revenge lawfare” and the right views them as justified, a full, nonpartisan assessment is premature.
The core issue is whether the indictment properly alleges a crime—specifically, whether there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Comey intentionally lied under oath to Congress about authorizing a material leak.
The professor outlines several distinct, overlapping issues that will shape the case:
Proof of Crime: For a conviction, the government must prove Comey knew he had authorized a leak when he denied it. This is complicated by the fact that the alleged FBI assistant now denies Comey’s awareness. Factual issues, Dershowitz notes, are ultimately for the jury.
Selective Prosecution: Comey’s defense will almost certainly argue that the prosecution is an unfair selective or targeted action, driven by his alienation of former President Donald J. Trump. While this is usually hard to prove, Trump’s public demands for Comey’s prosecution could make the defense somewhat more viable in the eyes of a sympathetic judge.
Fair Trial & Venue: A separate issue is whether Trump’s prior statements have poisoned the jury pool. Furthermore, the defense is likely to challenge the decision to try the case in Northern Virginia rather than the District of Columbia, given the crime’s geographically complex nature—a question in D.C. answered remotely from Virginia. Comey would likely prefer a D.C. jury, but a court may rule that enough of the crime occurred in Virginia to proceed there.
Dershowitz expects the defense to seek a bill of particulars due to the indictment’s “bare-bones” nature, suggesting it was rushed to meet an imminent statute of limitations. A superseding indictment providing more specificity is likely.
Beyond the constitutional and legal sparring, Dershowitz stresses the overriding ethical issue: Would this case have been brought if Comey were a friend of the administration?
The professor concludes by condemning both lawfare and selective prosecution as fundamentally wrong. While acknowledging that the Trump administration may believe it must use the legal system to hold accountable those who “distort the legal system,” he stresses that neither side should misuse the law to “get” their enemies.
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox.
